The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is consistent with the statement that the victim was unaware of the fact of the illegal extension or alteration of the purpose of use of the restaurant in this case, the defendant did not have any explicit explanation about it to the victim, and the victim did not discover that the area of business is smaller than that of the actual state because the defendant had been operating for a long time in the restaurant in this case, considering that there was no problem, the victim did not discover that the area of business is smaller than that of the actual state. In light of the fact that the defendant did not know about the illegal extension or alteration of the purpose of use of the restaurant in this case while entering into a contract with the victim for transfer and acquisition of the right to the restaurant

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. The lower court, based on the facts indicated in the judgment of innocence, concluded a contract to increase the number of units of the instant restaurant normally after concluding a contract on December 13, 2010, and concluded an agreement on December 13, 2012 with the victim’s business operation at the instant restaurant for 10 days in order to learn the business know-how prior to the conclusion of the instant lease agreement and to grasp the business situation in advance, etc.